Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Round Three, FIGHT, Obama wins Fatality!

Posted on: October 23, 2012 - 11:17am

Brian37

Posts: 15580

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Round Three, FIGHT, Obama wins Fatality!

Now when I say wins, it aint over I am just talking about the debate. I still encourage those on my side to not let them win at the voting booth or assume there is enough of a fire wall. But Romney got his clock cleaned.

I loved a couple of knock down puches Romeny deserved, the biggest one was about the size of the Navey. Obama rightfully said we don't use "horses or bayonets". And also that we do actually have more Navey ships than we did in 07, in any case.

And he also bitch slapped him about Romney saying Russia was our worst enemy "The 80s called and they want their forgien policy back".

The only thing I really wish Obama had done which he did not do was nail Romney who has claimed that he is not Bush on the fact that 17 of his advisors were part of that Administration.

Romney has lied for 6 years. Told the truth about what he wanteded in his last failed attempt and during the primaries, but when he knew it wasn't a winning combo he mimics the populist left and both the comman man which Obama is fighting for. He is a lier and a con artist. The only thing he and republicans deserve credit for is that they know how to get the middle class and working poor who vote republican to vote against their own self intrest.

Romney needs to be defeted to send the message that while money has power votes cannot be bought. We means we.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Romney doesn't have an honest bone in his body. He's creepy. He's like the priest at the church who tells your tweleve year old boy, "It's ok, trust me! I'm work for the big man upstairs. It's ok if I touch your penis".

Romney doesn't have an honest bone in his body. He's creepy. He's like the priest at the church who tells your tweleve year old boy, "It's ok, trust me! I'm work for the big man upstairs. It's ok if I touch your penis".

In a strict metaphorical sense, yes, he is the rich guy convincing middle class and poor republicans and swing voters to go into that confessional so he can "help" them, when the reality is he wants to help himself and his own tax braket. But outside that I am sure he loves his family and this country as much as anyone on our team, but his delusions and ego are leading him to be evil as far as politics go.

He is slimey and I do think he knows exactly what he is doing when he flopps. He is taking the Paul approach in lying and may believe that the lying will utimately lead to the good things he may truely think work, but he is still lying and needs to be put in his place.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Romney needs to be defeted to send the message that while money has power votes cannot be bought. We means we.

You are aware that Obama has spent far more than Romney this election? Even when you include all of the superpacs advertising against Obama he has still outspent Romney by over $50 million (roughly 10% more). A Romney victory would be evidence that money is not sufficient to buy votes. While he hasn't raised nearly as much as he did when he smashed Mccain (having almost twice as much money), Obama remains a formidable fundraising force.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

The stock market dropped 240 today. I think the stock market will drop if it looks like an Obama is ahead. The drop will scare people such that the election will be close.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Romney needs to be defeted to send the message that while money has power votes cannot be bought. We means we.

You are aware that Obama has spent far more than Romney this election? Even when you include all of the superpacs advertising against Obama he has still outspent Romney by over $50 million (roughly 10% more). A Romney victory would be evidence that money is not sufficient to buy votes. While he hasn't raised nearly as much as he did when he smashed Mccain (having almost twice as much money), Obama remains a formidable fundraising force.

Barely and even if he wins this time if the errosion of money flooding corporate super pacs it will not be long before we live under a one party system.

And your laughable claim that the Koch brothers are just funding the "lesser of the two evils" while cliaming both parties are bought is vacuuos when you are willing to accept that same corruptive money ignoring that if they can influence republicans whom you reject., that money can also corrupt your third party candidate too.

I think you love right to work states, I think you want higher profits and dont care if it comes at the expense of labor.

So when you claim to hate both parties no. You only hate not getting what you want and your party would errode the checks and balances on power and simply be the Koch brothers on steroids. Or should I say the Koch brothers would simply have more staroids to use than the current republican party gives them.

Keep it up, support the Koch brothers and we can become a one party plutocracy just like China.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Barely and even if he wins this time if the errosion of money flooding corporate super pacs it will not be long before we live under a one party system.

Only in the sense that we already live in a one party system in that there is very little difference between the two.

Brian37 wrote:

And your laughable claim that the Koch brothers are just funding the "lesser of the two evils" while cliaming both parties are bought is vacuuos when you are willing to accept that same corruptive money ignoring that if they can influence republicans whom you reject., that money can also corrupt your third party candidate too.

There is always the danger of a politician being corrupt, although IME the corruption comes more from the politician seizing their own power rather than the money. Money is available in vast quantities no matter what side of the issue you take. When I was a fundraiser we had lists of people and which PACs they donated to which gave us enough information to have an educated guess which stance they would take on any given issue. When that issue was prominent in the news we would solicit those people and ignore the ones who might disagree with the candidate on that issue. When we were hired by a new candidate we would give them a questionaire and have them select their sides and use that to determine which PACs to solicit, which people to solicit and who the likely major bundlers would be. It doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on, there are people who care about it and willing to donate money. The idea that somehow a million dollars is going to persuade a candidate to vote one way or another is absurd because the candidate can also solicit a million dollars from people on the other side of the issue.

Brian37 wrote:

I think you love right to work states, I think you want higher profits and dont care if it comes at the expense of labor.

I don't know how it is related but yes, I support the right to work. You think that it is right for people to be coerced into joining unions even if they don't want to? This issue affected me directly when I was young. I got a job in a union shop and I refused to join the union because I didn't like how they were spending the money I was forced to give them (they were using it to give political donations to candidates I didn't support). I ended up losing my job over it. How is that right?

Brian37 wrote:

So when you claim to hate both parties no. You only hate not getting what you want and your party would errode the checks and balances on power and simply be the Koch brothers on steroids. Or should I say the Koch brothers would simply have more staroids to use than the current republican party gives them.

Keep it up, support the Koch brothers and we can become a one party plutocracy just like China.

Well that would certainly be disappointing. I know I supported the republicans because they claimed to support smaller government but when in control of everything they bloated the government just like the dems. I would hope that the libertarians could maintain some idealism and avoid the temptation of using DC's power. But I know that neither of the current parties are going to decrease the power of DC, so what do you suggest I do? All I have left is to vote for the idealist and hope they aren't lying. The only other option would be to run for office myself but I couldn't stomach that, and as soon as the media started digging into my history they would have a field day. Pretty sure I would be DOA.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Barely and even if he wins this time if the errosion of money flooding corporate super pacs it will not be long before we live under a one party system.

Only in the sense that we already live in a one party system in that there is very little difference between the two.

Brian37 wrote:

And your laughable claim that the Koch brothers are just funding the "lesser of the two evils" while cliaming both parties are bought is vacuuos when you are willing to accept that same corruptive money ignoring that if they can influence republicans whom you reject., that money can also corrupt your third party candidate too.

There is always the danger of a politician being corrupt, although IME the corruption comes more from the politician seizing their own power rather than the money. Money is available in vast quantities no matter what side of the issue you take. When I was a fundraiser we had lists of people and which PACs they donated to which gave us enough information to have an educated guess which stance they would take on any given issue. When that issue was prominent in the news we would solicit those people and ignore the ones who might disagree with the candidate on that issue. When we were hired by a new candidate we would give them a questionaire and have them select their sides and use that to determine which PACs to solicit, which people to solicit and who the likely major bundlers would be. It doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on, there are people who care about it and willing to donate money. The idea that somehow a million dollars is going to persuade a candidate to vote one way or another is absurd because the candidate can also solicit a million dollars from people on the other side of the issue.

Brian37 wrote:

I think you love right to work states, I think you want higher profits and dont care if it comes at the expense of labor.

I don't know how it is related but yes, I support the right to work. You think that it is right for people to be coerced into joining unions even if they don't want to? This issue affected me directly when I was young. I got a job in a union shop and I refused to join the union because I didn't like how they were spending the money I was forced to give them (they were using it to give political donations to candidates I didn't support). I ended up losing my job over it. How is that right?

Brian37 wrote:

So when you claim to hate both parties no. You only hate not getting what you want and your party would errode the checks and balances on power and simply be the Koch brothers on steroids. Or should I say the Koch brothers would simply have more staroids to use than the current republican party gives them.

Keep it up, support the Koch brothers and we can become a one party plutocracy just like China.

Well that would certainly be disappointing. I know I supported the republicans because they claimed to support smaller government but when in control of everything they bloated the government just like the dems. I would hope that the libertarians could maintain some idealism and avoid the temptation of using DC's power. But I know that neither of the current parties are going to decrease the power of DC, so what do you suggest I do? All I have left is to vote for the idealist and hope they aren't lying. The only other option would be to run for office myself but I couldn't stomach that, and as soon as the media started digging into my history they would have a field day. Pretty sure I would be DOA.

No what you are stupidly implying like we are all dumb, is that where there are unions there have never been at the same job businesses that don't have unions, which has never been the case. You stupidly imply that the two have never co existed when they always have so the option to belong to a union or not has always been there as a choice. NY city alone has both union and non union jobs.

If you are going to imply that no one is intitled to a job, then no one is intitled to tell a business that has a union not to have one when other businesses exist they can apply to as well. Right to work means the right for the corporate community to ban the competition of the collective barganing of the worker.

If no one is intitled to a job when both union jobs and non union jobs exist in the same location then there is no violation of your rights. There is collective barganing on your part, corporate America pools its bully money to dictate what workers do and what they get paid.

Unfortunately unions are a dying breed and once dead there wont be any power on workers part, either government or private sector unions, your monopoly will be complete which is increasing and the next thing to go will be the minimum wage. The last crumb of a saftey net that is hardly sufficiant will allow people like you to make things even worse than they already are.

You'd expect me to think the Koch brothers care about wages and right to work fosters beter wages? HA! This after saying yourself that you wont pay one more dime in taxes than you have to, which says to me you are about money and profits are always above humans.

Neither of us like taxes, but the differnce is within reason, I don't mind paying them.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

No what you are stupidly implying like we are all dumb, is that where there are unions there have never been at the same job businesses that don't have unions, which has never been the case. You stupidly imply that the two have never co existed when they always have so the option to belong to a union or not has always been there as a choice. NY city alone has both union and non union jobs.

I don't imply anything, I think my language is very clear so you can stop trying to read between the lines. The whole "right to work" issue is whether or not a union can legally bar someone who isn't a union member from working for a unionized company.

Brian37 wrote:

If you are going to imply that no one is intitled to a job, then no one is intitled to tell a business that has a union not to have one when other businesses exist they can apply to as well. Right to work means the right for the corporate community to ban the competition of the collective barganing of the worker.

No, right to work does not ban unions. You are free to unionize all you want, all I want is for you not to force people to unwillingly join your union. I have no problem with voluntary unionization.

Brian37 wrote:

Unfortunately unions are a dying breed and once dead there wont be any power on workers part, either government or private sector unions, your monopoly will be complete which is increasing and the next thing to go will be the minimum wage. The last crumb of a saftey net that is hardly sufficiant will allow people like you to make things even worse than they already are.

The only reason that unions are dying out is because they are ran by thugs who care more about their personal profit than the long term benefit of the workers they are supposed to represent. They drive companies into bankruptcy, collect their dues and screw the workers who don't get all the benefits they were promised because the company went bankrupt. A good union negotiates a contract that is beneficial both for the employees and fiscally feasible for the company long term. There are a few good unions but the largest ones like the UAW or SEIU are ran by corrupt people leeching off the system. If workers were free to leave unions that represented them poorly, that would solve a lot of problems.

Brian37 wrote:

You'd expect me to think the Koch brothers care about wages and right to work fosters beter wages? HA! This after saying yourself that you wont pay one more dime in taxes than you have to, which says to me you are about money and profits are always above humans.

I don't expect you to think anything about the Koch brothers. I doubt they give a flying fuck about your wage. The less I pay in taxes the more I give to other humans without filtering it through DC. What do you imagine I do with my money? Do you think I have it buried in the yard somewhere? I don't. A very healthy portion of it goes to support the industry you work in because I like to eat out several times a week.

Brian37 wrote:

Neither of us like taxes, but the differnce is within reason, I don't mind paying them.

I wouldn't mind paying your tax rate either. I bet you would mind paying my tax rate. Why aren't you demanding that we raise the lower tax brackets up to 25%? After all, you don't mind. If everyone paid what I pay even after deductions it would put a far more significant dent in our budget problems than any solution so far proposed.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

I don't expect you to think anything about the Koch brothers. I doubt they give a flying fuck about your wage. The less I pay in taxes the more I give to other humans without filtering it through DC

THAT says everything we need to know right there. Thank you for proving my point. You give right, that is why you are so rich because you give. How could anyone doubt someone who supports people who don't give a shit about wages. Yea, you are such a humanitarian. Yea you give. Ok. I'll take your word for it, *cough*.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I don't expect you to think anything about the Koch brothers. I doubt they give a flying fuck about your wage. The less I pay in taxes the more I give to other humans without filtering it through DC

THAT says everything we need to know right there. Thank you for proving my point. You give right, that is why you are so rich because you give. How could anyone doubt someone who supports people who don't give a shit about wages. Yea, you are such a humanitarian. Yea you give. Ok. I'll take your word for it, *cough*.

Different people have different goals and different moralities. Why do you insist that everyone cares about the things you care about? There is a reason I am not a billionaire and never will be one. Why should I be upset because the Koch's decided they wanted to run a multi-billion dollar company? I have no interest in doing so, they do. Aren't you the one always ranting about people trying to make others follow their script? Why do you want everyone to follow your script?

If you want you are free to build a company that follows your personal values. My companies will follow my values and the Koch brothers' company will follow their values. I actually have zero knowledge of how the Koch's run their business as far as how well they take care of their employees, I suspect that you don't either. If they are using coercive force like throwing people in chains and making them work, come see me, but as long as everyone involved is consenting I have no problem with what they do whether I agree with it or not. To take a riff off of Evelyn Hall's quote, I might not agree with what you are doing but I will defend to the death your right to do it. (Actually, I won't really die for it, the days of me willing to get my ass shot for idealism disappeared a long time ago, I am pretty much only willing to die for myself or people I love) The bottom line is that businesses do things I don't like all the time, if it bugs me enough I don't associate with them but I am not going to pass a law to force them to do things just because I think it is a good idea or the "right" thing to do.

If you expect everyone in the world to have the same priorities and values as you, then you my crazy friend are the one seeking Utopia.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X